Jump to content

Error In The 'classic Image' Of Bigfoot


Recommended Posts

Patterson-Gimlin

Actually you fall into the sightings and reports category which are not proven. Your word is not something can be tested and measured and tested by science. As far as ego goes, it would seem you expect us to take your word for it with nothing to back up your claim. A more plausible explanation is misidentification, imagination or fabrication. 

Have a great evening.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cryptic Megafauna

As  I said I am well aware of the fossil record from the distant past. Not here of course. The land bridge is a plausible theory.

I stand by my statement . As many reports ,prints  and shaky videos if the creature did exist in the modern world. I would think it  would be a documented entity in a place like America.

You must not have read what I said if you insist on "distant past" as an interpretation of things living in the recent historical present as opposed to, say, African hominins. Anything alive during the interglacials of the last 120,000 years ago have just as much opportunity to cross a land bridge. This would not be true of Hominin ancestors in Africa a million years back.

 

Whatever your "awareness" might be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Teegunn

The well defined and clearly visible calf muscles are probably the most prominent features that I feel would make it all but impossible to fake this creature by having a dude in a suit walking across the sandbar that day.  There are a good number of items about Patty like the calf muscles that really are the main reasons that proponents think Patty was most likely a real creature, as hard as that is to fathom.  I still cannot come up with reasonable explanations for what we see in this film, even though I fully understand how hard it is to believe a 500 lb+ ape man species might be living and walking around in our modern day world.  But that is what it truly looks like we see in the PG fillm.  And this film seems more impossible to have actually faked than it is to think that somehow there is or was a species of ape man in our forests back in 1967 and possibly still today.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

 

As  I said I am well aware of the fossil record from the distant past. Not here of course. The land bridge is a plausible theory.

I stand by my statement . As many reports ,prints  and shaky videos if the creature did exist in the modern world. I would think it  would be a documented entity in a place like America.

You must not have read what I said if you insist on "distant past" as an interpretation of things living in the recent historical present as opposed to, say, African hominins. Anything alive during the interglacials of the last 120,000 years ago have just as much opportunity to cross a land bridge. This would not be true of Hominin ancestors in Africa a million years back.

 

Whatever your "awareness" might be.

 

I agree. I meant not to distant past. Thanks for the correction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot

Am I just seeing things? When looking at the pictures of Patty next to Tom Pate, Patty's hands look much larger than Tom P.'s hands. You see the same thing in "Cracking The Bigfoot Code". Using the Patty photo that Sweaty used in his first post, (the right side picture of the two at the bottom of the post), at about the 3:26 mark TT points out how much larger Patty's hands are compared to Bob. H's hands.

 

A fair number of people that have reported seeing a Bigfoot have commented on how large their hands were so they must be very large if it's that noticeable. I would think it would rule out a human wearing oversized costume gloves. Could a human in oversized gloves still curl their fingers and make them look perfectly natural and realistic as we see in the film?   

 

If the PGF was a man made suit, how would the suitmaker have known how large to make the hands and fingers so they would fit a human hand?  I think we can rule out the actor coming in for a measurement. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

The thinking now is that Homo Habilis, Erectus may all get reclassified as Erectus.

So find an Erectus from the earliest separation from Australopithecine hominins that had a smaller brain (pointy head receding brow) and longer limbs with no opposable thumbs right at the boundary and you have a recipe for Sasquatch, Almasty, Yeti, etc.

 

Interesting post, CM.  I have a feeling that Sasquatch (and other apes) are a lot more "human" than we think.  Still wrapping my mind about the opposable thumbs...

 

Good topic, Sweaty.  That 2nd image of Tom P. really puts that comparison in perspective!  I guess kit wants us to think that Tom is like this guy:

 

post-131-0-68350200-1467603148_thumb.jpg

 

(that could also explain the missing cell phone images)  8 )~

Link to post
Share on other sites
bf2011HBMay

There is at least one misinterpretation of this classic frame re: the hand. There was a frame distributed for years which showed that right hand in what appeared to be the "OK" sign and subsequent photos of this frame that were distributed followed suit. However, it turned out to be a glitch in the photo processing and has since been corrected in subsequent releases. I believe it was the Bruce Bonney photo reproductions that originally showed this anomaly and every reproduction job reflected it since. But it is noteworthy that his efforts gave us great still reproductions of the film, so that is a major accomplishment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
adam2323

For me the calf muscles and the quads and hams can clearly be seen. The only logical conclusion is a real primate ... Given the materials of the era it's not possible to replicate the figure in the video with a suit. All attempts to so have failed miserably.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^ ... and all other discussion from the scoftic cadre are, at best, feeble attempts wrapped in special pleading ... attempts to distract us from the otherwise unavoidable conclusion: Patty **is** a bigfoot, that's what they look like, they're real.

 

MIB 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot

Even if someone did manage to make a Patty suit, a huge problem would be finding a human that would fit the suit and it's body proportions and bulk.  

Patty's IM index - upper 80's

Human IM index avg. - 70-72

 

good luck finding that person. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Real or fake, I see muscle groups or the general look which to me at least is impressive as muscles or bulk. That bulk is working in unison in a way which moves or matches what one does when they are walking.  Some contend there is not enough detail on the film to identify these muscle groups.  Let's take that idea and just say there is a calf area, and a thigh area.  I will then say to them the calf area and thigh area contract and move in an expected manner as a person walking.

 

If a person wishes to say that is just the bulk of a suit moving around, I can live with that....provided they show it on a suit.  We are talking 1967 here. I don't see the 2001 Apes doing this and obviously not the Planet of the Apes.  I don't really even see the Star Wars creatures doing this. Harry and the Hendersons has all the look of a bunch of foam or padding under the 'fur' suit.  Save the complicated Robotic face, there is nothing in Harry which delivers this effect.

 

These things end up looking like the oversized green pipe cleaner arms and legs like in the movie the Grinch.

 

Here is something even more recent:

 

 

How about someone find such and effect and demonstrate it in some suit and show us.  An apples to apples example would mean a suit from the era, 1970's or older. I wont even hold you to 1967 or older.

 

BD

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
×
×
  • Create New...